## Recommended Posts

In this tread I would like to focus of the following paradox of the current mainstream.

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

Normally, Paradox is clear indication for an error.

Let me use the following example:

In Sudoku, sometimes we are obliged to select a random number out of the available options. Just later on we can verify if our assumption was correct or incorrect. So, if we get two same numbers at two spots on the same row, we know that this paradox is an indication that we have made a mistake in our selection/assumption.

Normally, it is expected that based on this paradox, we should understand that there is problem. There is no meaning to continue the game as we will never achieve the requested solution.

In the same way, it is expected that we should recognize that this paradox is an indication for an error.

It is also expected that we should highlight this paradox.

How can we discuss about the science while that paradox is here?

If someone will offer a new theory with this kind of paradox, would we accept it?

What is our goal?

Do we want to protect the main stream theory under any circumstances? Or do we want to find real solution for our Universe?

The first step for any real solution is to accept the idea that there is a problem.

Somehow I fill as a small kid in the king parade, while the naked king is passing by. Everyone is cheering for his new closes, while I see him naked.

Is it just a problem in my eyesight?

Don't you see that the king is naked?

I can't promise that we will find an instant answer. But please – let's start by accepting the reality.

It's time to say clearly – "Houston, we have a problem".

• Replies 56
• Created

#### Popular Days

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

Citation needed.

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

Citation needed.

It's time to say clearly – "Houston, we have a problem".

Has it never occurred to you that the problem might be that you don't understand? After all, you make that very clear to everybody else.

##### Share on other sites

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93614-new-mass-creation/page-2

You have otherwise I would have corrected it.

##### Share on other sites

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate.

However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding)

Now consider the following problem sets.

the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created.

Now consider the following questions.

1) What is mass?

2) How does observer affect how we measure mass and energy?

3) In one calc on that paper he included the Planck epock.

3a) how much influence does the Higgs field have at 10^16 Gev in a thermodynamic equilibrium Quark/gluon plasma soup? (Don't try to calculate it, just consider it) today the Higgs field accounts to roughly 1% the mass in a proton.

3b) did the author account for a varying Higgs field ? Or even the Higgs field itself?

3c) did he account for varying % of different elementary particles (ie those not bound in atoms )

The point being here is that paper was only 11 pages, it made numerous assumptions.

The other problem is we can only theorize conditions prior to the CMB. We can only apply what we understand today to understand those conditions.

We simply can't observe far enough. (The mean free path of photons was too short)

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Has it never occurred to you that the problem might be that you don't understand? After all, you make that very clear to everybody else.

Except me.

From his other threads David looks to me has a fair understanding.

I wonder this:

If the expansion of the Universe is an expansion of the metric and only of the metric, then the Universe never properly changed size, where "size" is the thing you measure using your metric. The metric changed, not the "size".

Considering this, the energy/mass density never changed.

##### Share on other sites

Except me.

From his other threads David looks to me has a fair understanding.

Which only reflects your own [lack of] understanding.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

I have to point out that in that thread you prefaced your statements with "If we assume". Here you are stating them as established fact. You can't buttress the claim of fact with the confirmation that you phrased an if/then statement correctly.

Is there some reason this needs its own thread? It looks to be a continuation of the one you linked to

##### Share on other sites

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate.

Thanks

However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding)

Sorry, that is the source for our difficulties.

The two options of the Energy/Mass of the Universe must be verified as follow:

1. What is the outcome if it hold true?

Does it mean that the paradox is real?

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate.

2. What is the outcome if it doesn't hold true.

Does it mean that there is new mass creation?

the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created.

It is quite frustrating issue.

If I will assume that it holds true, then I might get the following reply:

"Citation needed."

If I will assume that it doesn't holds true, then I might get the same reply:

"Citation needed."

We have created the current mainstream theory.

Therefore, we have to deal with the outcome!

The science can't hide behind the paradox. A decision should be taken.

Left or right!

Why can't we ask a "Citation needed" from the science?

Now consider the following questions.

1) What is mass?

2) How does observer affect how we measure mass and energy?

3) In one calc on that paper he included the Planck epock.

3a) how much influence does the Higgs field have at 10^16 Gev in a thermodynamic equilibrium Quark/gluon plasma soup? (Don't try to calculate it, just consider it) today the Higgs field accounts to roughly 1% the mass in a proton.

3b) did the author account for a varying Higgs field ? Or even the Higgs field itself?

3c) did he account for varying % of different elementary particles (ie those not bound in atoms )

The point being here is that paper was only 11 pages, it made numerous assumptions.

The other problem is we can only theorize conditions prior to the CMB. We can only apply what we understand today to understand those conditions.

Based on each direction, we will verify all of the above questions.

We simply can't observe far enough. (The mean free path of photons was too short)

Let's take a decision and verify the outcome of each direction.

the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created.

In any case, if we agree that there is a new mass creation, than we should continue the discussion at the New mass creation tread.

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

It is quite frustrating issue.

You might find it less frustrating if you learned some science instead of assuming that you are always correct and sciences is therefore wrong. (Everyone else would find this less frustrating as well.)

Your misunderstandings about this (and every other) topic have been explained repeatedly. Only for you to come back with exactly the same arguments. It is a waste of everyone's time (including yours).

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

O/T post and response hidden. Stick to the topic please

##### Share on other sites

You might find it less frustrating if you learned some science instead of assuming that you are always correct and sciences is therefore wrong. (Everyone else would find this less frustrating as well.)

Seven years ago, I have started to invest my time in cosmology world.

It's completely different from my daily engineering world.

It was clear to me that something wrong with the current concept.

However, just seven days ago I have discovered this paradox.

How could it be that it is undercovered?

Do you understand its real meaning?

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

Seven years ago, I have started to inverse my time in cosmology world.

And, as far as I can tell, you have learned nothing.

It was clear to me that something wrong with the current concept.

Presumably, you refuse to learn because you have already made your mind up (even though you don't understand the current model). Instead, you go out of your way to invent "errors" based on your lack of knowledge.

##### Share on other sites

How could it be that it is undercovered?

Do you understand its real meaning?

##### Share on other sites

Talking to David is like trying to nail jello to a wall. It just doesn't stick.

##### Share on other sites

I hope that by now, we all understand the meaning of that paradox.

However, what could be the source for this error?

##### Share on other sites

I hope that by now, we all understand the meaning of that paradox.

However, what could be the source for this error?

You
##### Share on other sites

Please advice if the error could be related with Friedmann equation as follow:

"..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation"

http://www.sciencedi...70269314009381#

"It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

##### Share on other sites

Please advice if the error could be related with Friedmann equation as follow:

"..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation"

http://www.sciencedi...70269314009381#

"It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

I'm not sure why. That describes the earliest period of the big bang, and I thought you were more concerned with recent expansion.

##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure why. That describes the earliest period of the big bang, and I thought you were more concerned with recent expansion.

Well, I didn't specify a specific time frame of the expansion as a source for the error.

I have stated that due to the Paradox there must be an error in our understanding about the Universe.

For example - we currently assume that the age of our Universe should be about 13.8 By.

Hence, that by itself proves that my statement is correct.

Therefore, the science community should understand that there is a problem with the current hypothetical theories.

This understanding might open a door for a new era in cosmology world.

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

I have stated that due to the Paradox there must be an error in our understanding about the Universe.[/size]

I do not see the paradox. The notion of total energy in an expanding Universe is not clear.

For example - we currently assume that the age of our Universe should be about 13.8 By. [/size]

This is derived from the standard model of cosmology and not simply assumed.

The age of the Universe is highly model dependent.

Therefore, the science community should understand that there is a problem with the current hypothetical theories.[/size]

Your term 'hypothetical theories' is strange. By theory we mean a mathematical model.

##### Share on other sites

Hence, that by itself proves that my statement is correct.

No it doesn't. What it does demonstrate is that people are constantly looking for better models. Which seems to be what you are demanding that science should do.

No one thinks our current understanding is perfect. They understand the problems. Your total lack of understanding does not help clarify the situation.

##### Share on other sites

I do not see the paradox.

Do you understand that based on the current mainstream, in the same universe, there must be two contradicted constants at the same time as follow:

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

Now, do you see the paradox?

If not, how can you explain those two contradicted constants?

The notion of total energy in an expanding Universe is not clear.

Do you mean that lake of knowledge helps to bypass the paradox?

By theory we mean a mathematical model.

Yes, mathematical model and calculations are very important for our understanding.

The age of the Universe is highly model dependent.

So, why do you reject the following mathematical study on Friedmann equation?

As stated in the following article:

http://www.sciencedi...70269314009381#

It is stated clearly that they "..studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation"

Based on this study they have predicted "an infinite age of our universe."

Why you do not agree with their prediction?

Do you see any error in their calculations?

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

Do you understand that based on the current mainstream, in the same universe, there must be two contradicted constants at the same time as follow:

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

Neither of those must be true. And number 2 is only true for certain definitions and assumptions. In general it is not true.

Do you mean that lake of knowledge helps to bypass the paradox?

No, it means there is no clear definition of "total energy" in GR. Which is why it is not possible to say that it "must be constant".

Why you do not agree with their prediction?

Do you see any error in their calculations?

Their work is interesting but it is also (as they say) quite speculative. They take an approach to unifying quantum theory and general relativity that is not known to be correct. Their results might be confirmed by further work, in particular a theory of quantum gravity, or they may not. All you can say at the moment is that it is interesting.

How can you assume that their work is correct when it is based on the standard cosmological model, but at the same time you reject that model? That doesn't make much sense.

##### Share on other sites

Thanks

Neither of those must be true. And number 2 is only true for certain definitions and assumptions. In general it is not true.

So, if I understand you correctly, there is small possibility that the total energy of the Universe is not constant. Hence, there is small chance that the Energy/mass should increase as the Universe expands?

In this case, the direct outcome must be a new energy/mass creation.

That is correlated with the message from Mordred:

the paper I showed you where the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics. (Should have been an indicator that it depends on how you model the system). The author felt mass is created.

So, if there is new Energy/mass creation - then there is no need for paradox.

However, if you insist that there is no new Energy/mass creation, than you have to deal with the paradox.

You can't just hold the stick at both sides at the same time.

Left or right.

No, it means there is no clear definition of "total energy" in GR. Which is why it is not possible to say that it "must be constant".

We have to make it clear.

How can you claim that we know how the Universe works, but on this issue suddenly it is not clear to us, so we can't say what is correct.

If you can't say, than please don't say.

Why do you argue about something which you don't know if it is correct?

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

I have made exactly the same points before. But, as always, you ignore or forge things that you disagree with and/or don't understand.

So, if I understand you correctly, there is small possibility that the total energy of the Universe is not constant.

There are two things here: there is no clear definition of what "the total energy of the Universe" means. So asking if it stays constant is not very meaningful. On the other hand, it is possible that dark energy (for one possible explanation) increases as the universe expands.

Hence, there is small chance that the Energy/mass should increase as the Universe expands?

In this case, the direct outcome must be a new energy/mass creation.[/size][/font]

If so, there is also a chance it will decrease. Whether it increases or decreases might depend on what definition of "the total energy of the Universe" you use. Or maybe it is impossible to say, because there is no suitable definition to say such a thing.

That is correlated with the message from Mordred:

What!? Obviously you are totally incapable of understanding a very simple sentence. Here it is again: "the author showed both conserved and not conserved metrics." In other words, it is not possible to definitively say if energy is conserved or not.

But, of course, the only bit you saw was "The author felt mass is created". That is just an opinion.

I don't think you have ever said anything I agree with. (Apart from your occasional admissions that you don't understand anything.)

How can you claim that we know how the Universe works, but on this issue suddenly it is not clear to us, so we can't say what is correct.

Because it is a consequence of our current best model of how the universe works. There is no reason why we have to be able to say if energy is conserved or not. The "correct" answer might be (and appears to be): "it depends".

## Create an account

Register a new account